RoyalDude wrote:Personally, if I were Aqualini, I'd be calling Bonner and Hay and ask if they are interested in the GM and Coach job with the Canucks and if so, I'd fire everyone from Gillis, scouting department to the Coaching staff and let Bonner put his people in place. The guy is a smart GM and Hay is a good coach and know this city. But something tells me that Aqualini isn't this smart.

RoyalDude wrote:I'd consider trading Bieksa ahead of Edler just because of age.

I would too, but Bieksa isn't going to ask Gillis to explore potential trade options and Gillis was on record (albeit years ago) about not asking players to waive no trade clauses. So as it stands, the Canucks' defense core isn't likely to change in the next 3 years.

As outlined in my original post, Bieksa can play with Hamhuis. That's been a good pairing for two years and there's no reason why that pairing can't continue to be good. Garrison is better on the left side and you can slot him with pretty much anyone. There is no reason why Garrison won't play well with someone like Tanev and that can potentially be a very good pairing. In terms of fit and salary structure, that group works. You trade Bieksa instead of Edler and you continue to have three left side defenders that have caused defense pairing problems for the Canucks this season.

RoyalDude wrote:I'd consider trading Bieksa ahead of Edler just because of age.

I would too, but Bieksa isn't going to ask Gillis to explore potential trade options and Gillis was on record (albeit years ago) about not asking players to waive no trade clauses. So as it stands, the Canucks' defense core isn't likely to change in the next 3 years.

As outlined in my original post, Bieksa can play with Hamhuis. That's been a good pairing for two years and there's no reason why that pairing can't continue to be good. Garrison is better on the left side and you can slot him with pretty much anyone. There is no reason why Garrison won't play well with someone like Tanev and that can potentially be a very good pairing. In terms of fit and salary structure, that group works. You trade Bieksa instead of Edler and you continue to have three left side defenders that have caused defense pairing problems for the Canucks this season.

Have you or any of you other ahem, fans considered that if the offence averaged, oh I don't know maybe like a goal a game more, over the last three games, none of you would be giving away defencemen like they were cold germs? Seriously it take 8 NHL defencemen to win a cup and you want to gas at least three like they grow on trees... Wow.

RoyalDude wrote:I'd consider trading Bieksa ahead of Edler just because of age.

I would too, but Bieksa isn't going to ask Gillis to explore potential trade options and Gillis was on record (albeit years ago) about not asking players to waive no trade clauses. So as it stands, the Canucks' defense core isn't likely to change in the next 3 years.

As outlined in my original post, Bieksa can play with Hamhuis. That's been a good pairing for two years and there's no reason why that pairing can't continue to be good. Garrison is better on the left side and you can slot him with pretty much anyone. There is no reason why Garrison won't play well with someone like Tanev and that can potentially be a very good pairing. In terms of fit and salary structure, that group works. You trade Bieksa instead of Edler and you continue to have three left side defenders that have caused defense pairing problems for the Canucks this season.

Have you or any of you other ahem, fans considered that if the offence averaged, oh I don't know maybe like a goal a game more, over the last three games, none of you would be giving away defencemen like they were cold germs? Seriously it take 8 NHL defencemen to win a cup and you want to gas at least three like they grow on trees... Wow.

Don't agree with getting rid of any D that can take a hit. Have you seen the size of forwards in our division?We need bigger power forwards!

If Alex Edler has the kind of trade value that the HFBoards brigade thinks he does (eg. Sean Couturier and a 10 spot jump up the board in this year's 1st round) then I'd look long and hard at dealing him.

Having $18-19m locked up on the blueline in NTCs is great when those guys are all performing at a high level, but if not the lack of flexibility is pretty troublesome and Edler might just be the best combination of a liquid asset and a high trade value if we want to keep our options open back there.

Of course, it is probable that if Edler moves he will be the best blueliner to change teams this offseason, pretty tough to upgrade at that position in that case for the Canucks.

Then there is the possibility that Edler, like many others on this team, would be doing much better under a different coach and system. I'd hate to see this franchise swap out coaches this offseason and just assume that will be enough (along with whatever scrambling they need to do to get under the cap) but if there's reason to believe a young player with all the tools to succeed is going to be more likely to do so, is now really the time to sell relatively low on him?

dbr wrote:If Alex Edler has the kind of trade value that the HFBoards brigade thinks he does (eg. Sean Couturier and a 10 spot jump up the board in this year's 1st round) then I'd look long and hard at dealing him.

Having $18-19m locked up on the blueline in NTCs is great when those guys are all performing at a high level, but if not the lack of flexibility is pretty troublesome and Edler might just be the best combination of a liquid asset and a high trade value if we want to keep our options open back there.

Of course, it is probable that if Edler moves he will be the best blueliner to change teams this offseason, pretty tough to upgrade at that position in that case for the Canucks.

Then there is the possibility that Edler, like many others on this team, would be doing much better under a different coach and system. I'd hate to see this franchise swap out coaches this offseason and just assume that will be enough (along with whatever scrambling they need to do to get under the cap) but if there's reason to believe a young player with all the tools to succeed is going to be more likely to do so, is now really the time to sell relatively low on him?

I think if Edler stays and still doesn't improve under a new caoching regime then his value diminishes exponentially and his NTC kicks in. If there's a time to sell Edler, it's now. It would hurt to see him flourish and become a better player somewhere else, but if the return brings in the kinds of forwards this team needs (ie- a Sean Couturier or a David Clarkson type) then why not? The blueline depth would take a noticeable hit but looking at Edler these playoffs (and last year's) I'm thinking it may be addition by subtraction.

Having not watched anything this year and little last, it is difficult to comment with any authority but it strikes me that Edler was mostly upswing until these back issues reared their ugly head at which point there has been a flattening or perhaps (as many seem to indicate) some regression in play?

There are also noises in my head that suggest Edler himself claimed that he will never be 100% healthy and that these issues will plague him for the rest of his career and beyond?

(As an aside I believe these comments wee made prior to his signing of the most recent extension to his deal. Does this team have weird issues/differences of opinions with/about injuries, recoveries et cetera or is it just me?)

So, if the back is a problem and he will never be, by his own admission, the same or fully recovered perhaps, if the return is there, a punting of this player should be considered.

donlever wrote:(As an aside I believe these comments wee made prior to his signing of the most recent extension to his deal. Does this team have weird issues/differences of opinions with/about injuries, recoveries et cetera or is it just me?)

So, if the back is a problem and he will never be, by his own admission, the same or fully recovered perhaps, if the return is there, a punting of this player should be considered.

Donny I'm finding less and less time to watch the games myself, I hadn't heard this about Edler although I know the same was said about Raymond after his back injury.

If that is the case then yeah I think cutting ties would be the way to go.. and yes we certainly seem to have a bizarre track record with injuries, we'll probably never know the whole story but it'd be nice to have fewer 's in that area as a club that is routinely done in by the injury bug every year.

Lancer wrote:I think if Edler stays and still doesn't improve under a new caoching regime then his value diminishes exponentially and his NTC kicks in. If there's a time to sell Edler, it's now. It would hurt to see him flourish and become a better player somewhere else, but if the return brings in the kinds of forwards this team needs (ie- a Sean Couturier or a David Clarkson type) then why not? The blueline depth would take a noticeable hit but looking at Edler these playoffs (and last year's) I'm thinking it may be addition by subtraction.

True. Unless he bounces back and (again) becomes a player you just don't trade, it will never be easier to move Edler than it will be this offseason.

dbr wrote:...I hadn't heard this about Edler although I know the same was said about Raymond after his back injury.

If that is the case then yeah I think cutting ties would be the way to go..

Admittedly I am going by word of mouth here but a quick Google search brings this up...

According to The Province, Vancouver Canucks defenseman Alexander Edler has been removed from the injured reserve list and cleared for play after spending the past three months rehabilitating from a back injury. It's not all good news, however, as Edler believes the ongoing issue will prevent him returning to 100 percent in the future.

"There haven't been any red lights. I can do everything, but that doesn't mean I'm not feeling it. Sometimes it's sore and stiff, but it was sore and stiff last year and I played 82 games."

It's these honest words which worry and relieve fans at the same time.

For Edler, this clearly means he may play out the remainder of his career in significant discomfort. But as he said, he played 82 games through his injury last season and more importantly, he was among the best defenders in the league with 49 total points.

Cornuck wrote:So we send him to Tampa with the other Swede outcasts and watch his rejuvenate his career?

The only Swede that Tampa Bay took away from the Canucks is Ohlund and his career is pretty much over. Salo is a Finn...

Anyhow, the only defensemen that MG should keep are Hamhuis and Garrison. Since Bieksa has a NTC, the only defenseman that can generate some returns, besides Ballard, is Edler. Personally, I would not mind MG trading Edler if the return is a top-six power forward or a solid top-four defenseman.